[QUOTE=jasong;414030]A few pages back, you said people should follow the golden rule, but do you even remember the golden rule?

Do to others as you would have them do to you. So if you approve of capitalism, the idea of competitive markets, how does that tie into the golden rule?

I'm not advocating socialism in widespread form, but that's simply because I don't trust society. [U][B]Capitalism doesn't work because it's better, it works because it allows for the reality that people will tend to be bastards when given the opportunity.[/B][/U]

If the whole planet followed the golden rule, then the planet would be either socialist or communist because people would truly see others needs as equal to their own. Again, I'm not advocating for those types of governments, just trying to get you to understand [U][B]socialism isn't evil and capitalism isn't people being awesome[/B][/U].[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Red][B]Very well said![/B][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=LaurV;414032]Yeah, we know, "if you put a drop of wine in a barrel of sewage water, you get a barrel of sewage water; if you put a drop of sewage water in a barrel of wine, you get a barrel of sewage water". But that is Murphy. Life is a bit different... :razz:[/QUOTE]

:grin:

[QUOTE=blip;414036]Just forget about socialism, that's a dead horse.

[U][B]The key question is, whether economics dominate politics or vice versa.[/B][/U] IMHO, the political system always has to define the rules economics have to adhere to, not the other way round. [U][B]Economics does not care about morale, social standards, inequalities, etc. Political decisionmaking has to drive lawmaking, which then defines the fence for all other systems in society. The economical system has to comply with that and play within its playground.[/B][/U] Obviously, sometimes some players in the economical world do not like that, but hey, that's the way it is. [U][B]Screaming "unfair" (read: "socialism") reminds me of small kids[/B][/U].[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Red][B]BRAVO![/B][/COLOR] Well put, Sir!

[B]Great series of comments! LaurV, you crack me up.

[/B]JasonG: note the use of multi-quote. Awesome remarks, too!

Socialism is less about "screaming unfair" than it is an attempt to curb and reverse the worst excesses of individual greed which manifest themselves in a capitalist system which is allowed to run riot. There is nothing childish about working towards the elimination of poverty.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;414066]Socialism is less about "screaming unfair" than it is an attempt to curb and reverse the worst excesses of individual greed which manifest themselves in a capitalist system which is allowed to run riot. There is nothing childish about working towards the elimination of poverty.[/QUOTE]

(1) Socialism enthrones poverty, not fight it.

(2) Capitalism allows its practitioners to fight poverty if they choose.
Who better to fight poverty than those who create wealth.

(3) The generic error being made by those here opposing capitalism
is ignoring the nature of wealth, and what makes it possible.

(4) Greed and selff-interest can be positive motivators too.

[QUOTE=davar55;413948]No, the world IS black and white. If you mix food (capitalism) with poison (socialism)
you get the mixed welfare economy, which is still (diluter) poison.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Batalov;413976]And there you have it. You yourself found the problem that stymies you in your perception of the world.
This is not an assessment - this is merely an observation which is aimed to help you.[/QUOTE]

Failure to see things in black and white, like failure to see right from wrong,
is the problem.

Was Rosa Parks right or wrong when she refused to move to the back of the bus?

I punned a pun when I was young
when puns were wild and I was free
I punned a pun and it was done
and I was left sitting in the sun

Sing to the tune of "I dreamed a dream"

Davar, I read through this thread and was dumbfounded and flabbergasted. How is it possible for anyone to live in the dystopian universe of capitalism and not recognize the signs of an economic system run amok? I'm sure you are able to see the shortcomings of socialism/communism, but how is it possible to overlook the people who starve, who die from lack of medical care, who struggle daily to have a few crumbs to eat and a place to sleep? There are some advantages to capitalism, but to be oblivious to the failings is unbelievable. Look at these slides and then tell me what it would feel like to eat for $1.62 per week. [url]http://www.slideshare.net/billgross/weekly-food-24226428[/url]

By way of throwing another spanner into the 'free market good! Government meddling bad!' delusion:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/what-the-steve-jobs-movie-wont-tell-you-about-apples-success.html]What the Steve Jobs Movie Won't Tell You About Apple's Success[/url] | naked capitalism
[quote]Mariana Mazzucato’s recent book, [i]The Entrepreneurial State[/i], makes a bold and well documented case that government has played the key actor in promoting innovation, largely because private interests lack the risk tolerance and long time horizon needed to create foundational technologies. She goes through numerous industries in the US and abroad to make her case.[/quote]
Consider this 'product of socialist state central planning' Internet thing we are using to have the present discussion, for instance.

If I may ask a rather uninformed question, if one favors a free market where the government only steps in on abusive practices(possibly including self-abusive, like alcoholism and cigarettes) is that libertarianism, or do I need to go back to square one?

I had a friend ask me,"Don't you think libertarianism is simply chaos?" And my reply was,"If there's chaos, obviously there isn't enough government oversight." So am I wrong about the definition, or was he oversimplifying things with his question?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a Christian, I want things to be a certain way. But, obviously, if we force people too far into Christian practices, we only create haters, which doesn't help anyone. I want a nation based on Christian practices, but with no legal requirement to in any way be Christian. If I had the ear of the policy-makers, I'd want them to focus on successful rehabilitation practices in other countries, so that we could try to get away from the revenge-based clustermug that we have now. And irregardless of monetary distribution within the country, I'd try to help people have more satisfying lives. No idea how to do that, but the debaters seem very angry when I watch, not a lot of kindness going on, except with Bernie "The Tongue" Sanders ;)

I know I may have come across a bit severe in another thread I started a month or so back, but, tbh, I just like things to make sense.

[QUOTE=davar55;413950]In the words of the Ionians (regarding disney), "What's your beef?"

To o.h.: I wish to have explained, in short words and sentences and few paragraphs,
a brief summary of what you have against the not-yet-existing-economic-system of
perfect capitalism. For the purpose of comprehension and perhaps re-discussion,
in the other thread.[/QUOTE]
Perfect capitalism is the road on the way to slavery. The blacks of a hundred or so years ago had no defense against the invading Europeans, so the Europeans got to practice "perfect capitalism" by putting them in chains and shipping them off to various places to be sold against their will.

"Perfect capitalism": the ability, euphemistically or literally, to eagerly take advantage of someone in any want you please. Also known as unbridled sadism.

To imagine what perfect capitalism would be like, randomly pick a video from the porn site kink.com involving some form of torture, then imagine that the "victim" didn't actually sign on for the treatment, but was forcibly placed in that situation.

[Boldface is mine]

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/mussolini-style-corporatism-aka-fascism-on-the-rise-in-the-us.html]Mussolini-Style Corporatism, aka Fascism, on the Rise in the US[/url] | naked capitalism
[quote]In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni—the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations. Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.

Vice-President [Henry] Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 [New York] Times article his concern about the same happening here in America:
[i]
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.
...
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. [b]They demand free enterprise[/b], but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.[/i][/quote]
My one quibble with the piece is this:
[quote]Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself “conservativism.”[sic] The Republican candidates’ and their billionaire donors’ behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, “In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for.”[/quote]
I see relatively little difference between the two major parties here - both are thoroughly corrupted by BigCorp money, both - in the actions as opposed to their lips-moving lying - treat the Constitution as a dead letter, both celebrate the modern day self-proclaimedly exceptional Empire they serve, which is corporatist to the very core. The Repugs are simply more unapologetic about it.

"Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni—the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations"
A bit forced translation to look pejorative, the author deliberately forgets that "fascia" was a Latin [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces"]symbol of authority of the magistrate[/URL], and at the time, it meant nothing else than the "chamber of corporations in power" or so, i.e. just capitalism, opposing to communist currents. If they became idiots after that, well that is a different story. The power corrupts, and the absolute power corrupts absolutely (well.. this doesn't sound very well in English, or it may not have the meaning I want to give to it, sorry).